Class 8 surge, trailer slump complicates trucking recovery narrative

The divergence complicated what otherwise might appear to be a straightforward freight recovery narrative.

Fleets continued placing truck orders at elevated rates during the first quarter and into April, while trailer manufacturers and analysts continued discussing shallow backlogs and excess capacity.

That split left open a broader question as to whether Class 8 demand had been accelerated by EPA 2027-related ordering activity, whether trailer demand has been restrained by trade uncertainty and weak freight conditions, or whether both markets were reacting to different policy pressures at the same time. The EPA rule imposes stricter emissions limits on 2027 model years and later.

Class 8 orders

ACT Research preliminary North American Class 8 net orders totaled 30,800 units in January; 46,200 units in February; 37,200 units in March; and 24,800 units in April. The April figure increased 201% year over year despite falling 24% month over month on a seasonally adjusted basis.

FTR Intelligence reported similar movement. Preliminary North American Class 8 orders totaled 32,068 units in January; 47,118 units in February; 38,890 units in March; and 25,500 units in April. FTR said April orders declined 34% month over month but increased 199% year over year.

Both firms repeatedly pointed to freight rates, tightening capacity, replacement demand and orders related to EPA 2027 as factors bolstering Class 8 demand.

ACT Research said February represented the eighth-best order month in the dataset going back more than 44 years. The company also said March order activity remained “very strong” despite retreating from February’s level.

Meanwhile, FTR Intelligence said orders during 2026 were running 110% above prior-year levels through April. Earlier in the quarter, FTR Intelligence said order boards for 2026 could fill earlier than normal as fleets secured production slots ahead of the EPA changes.

That said, in March, the administration revised portions of the EPA regulations by reducing some diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) sensor requirements and sever inducement penalties tied to emissions systems. These sensors communicate with the vehicle’s engine control unit to verify that enough urea-water solution is being injected into the exhaust stream to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

Additionally, both firms also referenced easier year-over-year comparisons from weak 2025 levels.

US trailer orders

Trailer demand did not follow the same pattern.

ACT Research reported preliminary March trailer net orders of 18,800 units, up 42% month over month from Februrary’s 13,300-unit level but down 14% year over year.

FTR Intelligence report showed weakness throughout the first quarter. US trailer net orders totaled 24,069 units in January, down a little more than 3% year over year, followed by 13,305 units in February, down 31%; and 18,045 units in March, down 15%.

The March increase from February levels still left trailer orders below both prior-year levels and the 10-year March averaged cited by FTR Intelligence. The firm said fleets continued prioritizing power-unit purchases while trailer demand remained largely replacement driven amid excess trailer capacity and financing concerns.

Trailer demand weakness during the quarter also overlapped with ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations involving van-type trailer imports and subassemblies from Canada, China and Mexico.

The US International Trade Commission issued affirmative preliminary injury determinations in February, allowing the investigations to proceed. The Department of Commerce later postponed preliminary countervailing duty determinations until June 1.

Truck-trailer divergence

In a balanced freight expansion cycle, trailer demand would track closely with tractor demand and, in some cases, outpace it over time because fleets often operate more trailers than power units.

Additional trailers allow carriers to stage loads, reduce idle time, and keep trucks moving through drop-and-hook freight networks even when trailers sit temporarily unloaded.

Conceptually, it could be inferred that trailer needs would build alongside, or even ahead of, truck needs when fleets prepare for a broader expansion.

That dynamic didn’t appear to be the case in Q1’26.

It should be noted the datasets are not directly equivalent. The Class 8 figures referenced by ACT Research and FTR Intelligence measure North American orders, while the trailer figures concern US trailer orders only.

Even so, the directional movement between the two markets remained notably different during Q1’26, with tractor orders increasing sharply from prior-year levels while trailer orders continued declining year over year from an already comparably weak 2025 data set.

Final thoughts

The divergence leaves two possible readings, one of which was visible in ACT Research and FTR Intelligence commentary contained in month-by-month data releases.

The first is that EPA 2027-related concerns pulled truck orders forward. ACT Research and FTR Intelligence both cited the regulations, as well as higher future equipment costs and tightening build availability as factors supporting Class 8 demand.

FTR Intelligence also warned fleets could order out of “fear of missing out” on remaining 2026 production slots, increasing cancellation risk if freight recovery stalls.

That risk may have changed after the administration’s late-March revisions tied to diesel exhaust fluid systems and inducement penalties. The changes did not remove future emissions standards, but they reduced some of the operational concerns around DEF sensor failures and severe engine power limitations.

If fleets placed some truck orders mainly to avoid those risks, the revisions could test how much of the Class 8 backlog is a product of durable demand versus timing-driven demand.

The second reading is trailer orders may have faced their own restraints from unresolved trade proceedings. The ongoing antidumping and countervailing duty investigations regarding “van-type trailers and subassemblies” from Canada, Mexico and China leaves potential duty exposure unresolved.

The uncertainty matters because trailer imports and subassemblies from Canada and especially Mexico are part of the North American supply picture. Hyundai Translead, the largest North American trailer producer by output, manufactures its North American trailer output in Mexico and has since announced plans to build two manufacturing facilities in Illinois.

If US buyers expected imported trailers or components to face a still unknown duty rate, some orders may have been delayed.

Either way the split suggests the market may need to rebalance.

Actual heavy-duty truck sales and deliveries during the quarter remained weaker at several major OEMs despite the increase in Class 8 order activity.

Daimler Truck North America unit sales fell about 25% year over year during the first quarter. PACCAR reported a nearly 20% decrease in US and Canada deliveries. Volvo Group North America heavy-duty retail sales fell a little more than 32%. While deliveries lag orders, the figures added another sign current market conditions remained weaker than the headline order activity alone might suggest.

Trailer manufacturer shipment data also weakened during the quarter. Wabash National, one of the few publicly traded US trailer manufacturers, reported Q1’26 new trailer shipments of 5,378 units, down from 6,290 units during the same quarter of 2025. New truck body shipments fell to 1,527 units from 3,000 units year over year.